Maître d'MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden, revealing the side effect ('boost in recommendations'), return type ('Confirmation'), and prerequisite constraint. Lacks details on idempotency or error states, but covers primary behavioral traits well.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Follows a logical structure (purpose → side effects → prerequisites → parameters → returns). The common tags list is lengthy but justified as it substitutes for absent schema enums. No tautological waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given moderate complexity (4 parameters, mutation semantics) and presence of output schema hints ('Returns:' section), the description adequately covers the workflow chain (search→wishlist→recommendation boost). Would benefit from explicitly referencing 'my_wishlist' for verification, but remains complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the text fully compensates by providing rich semantics: 'action' values explained ('add' vs 'remove'), 'notes' includes concrete example ('get the tasting menu'), and 'tags' documents format ('comma-separated'), examples, and enumerates common values serving as surrogate enum constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specifies the exact mutating actions (add/remove) on the wishlist resource and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'my_wishlist' (view-only) and 'search_restaurants' (discovery), while clarifying these are 'places you want to try in the future' vs immediate reservations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit prerequisite workflow: 'The restaurant must already appear in search results (search first)', directing users to the 'search_restaurants' sibling tool before invocation, and implies temporal use (future dining plans vs immediate booking).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.